Greetings, all. Ambush Bug here with another AICN HORROR: ZOMBIES & SHARKS column. In this special column, Dr. Loomis talks with writer Justin Beahm about his new book HALLOWEEN: THE COMPLETE AUTHORIZED HISTORY. I’ll be back tomorrow with a very special SDCC-centric AICN HORROR column, but until then, enjoy the interview!

Dr. Loomis here. We’ve seen some great behind-the-scenes books examining classic genre films and film franchises over the past few years: CRYSTAL LAKE MEMORIES: THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF FRIDAY THE 13TH and JAWS: MEMORIES FROM MARTHA’S VINYARD are two standouts that come to mind. Now there’s another one on the way: HALLOWEEN: THE COMPLETE AUTHORIZED HISTORY.

Author Justin Beahm is hard at work on the book now, prepping it for an October 2013 release (just in time for the 35th anniversary of John Carpenter’s classic original). Beahm has the inside track on the HALLOWEEN franchise these days – in addition to this new book, he’s heavily involved in the just-announced Blu-ray editions of HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS and HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS, coming home on August 28 from Anchor Bay. Beahm was good enough to take time to answer a few questions about the book, which is Shape-ing up to be a comprehensive examination of the entire series.

DR. LOOMIS (DL): Tell us a little bit about how this book came to be. Was it something you came up with, or did the publisher come to you with the idea?

JUSTIN BEAHM (JB): Several years ago I started working on a piece for Fangoria on the HALLOWEEN 4-6 story arc, and as I started interviewing people, I realized there was a much bigger story that could be told. I pulled the article and started thinking about a book. Last year, while working with HALLOWEEN series producer Malek Akkad on several other projects, I threw the idea at him, handing over a detailed proposal of what I had in mind, and he loved it. From there, I shopped it around to publishers for a few months, ending up in serious talks with a handful of very enthusiastic prospects. We will be announcing our choice very soon.

DL: Tell us a little bit about what the book will contain - will it cover all of the movies, including the Rob Zombie films? What can we expect as far as photos, script excerpts, promotional material, and the like?

JB: The book will cover all ten existing films, as well as some info on the 11th, which is currently in development. Each film will get equal attention, and that includes Rob’s. This will be heavily illustrated, with a bounty of rare and unseen photos, lots of props and memorabilia, and a thorough examination of all the masks. The bulk of the book will consist of the words of the people involved with each production, but things like the music, and the bits left on the cutting room floor, for example, will all be covered.

DL: What is John Carpenter's involvement with the book?

JB: I interviewed John extensively on the whole series, which is rare. He is happy something like this is finally being put together, and is contributing in more ways than one.

DL: It must be difficult to tell the definitive story of the HALLOWEEN series without having Moustapha Akkad and Debra Hill here to contribute. How will their involvement in the series be covered?

JB: I have access to lots of archival material, and there is plenty there from both Moustapha and Debra, some of which has never been seen or heard before now. The same goes for the late Donald Pleasence. They will all be part of the discussion on their respective films, just like everyone else.

DL: I know you are early in the production of the book, but what kind of surprises have you uncovered so far?

JB: I don’t want to spoil anything, but, for one, I will say that I am addressing as many mysteries as possible. The truth behind the introduction of the notorious “Man In Black” in HALLOWEEN 5, for example. There have been many rumors over the years about how he came to be, and the book will have the full story, which isn’t what people have heard. That is the wonderful thing about writing on this series…90% of the attention over time has focused on John’s 1978 original, leaving nine other films mostly unexplored.

DL: Not all of the films in the series are as revered as the first two. Parts four and five have their fans, but I rarely hear anyone have anything nice to say about HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION. Will all of the films be given equal treatment, or will you be concentrating more on the "fan favorites"?

JB: One of the amazing things about this series is how loyal and engaged the fanbase is. It really is like STAR TREK or DARK SHADOWS, how people have spent the last 35 years pouring over every detail of each of these pictures. Of course everyone has their favorites, but with all due respect to what may be perceived as the good vs. bad entries, I am doing my best to give all ten equal space. There are people who think HALLOWEEN III or RESURRECTION are the best entries, and they will have just as much to enjoy here as people who are showing up for the original and HALLOWEEN II (’81).

DL: Rob Zombie's two HALLOWEEN films are among the most polarizing in the series - is Zombie going to be involved or interviewed for the book?

JB: Rob and I have already had several extensive interview sessions. He has been wonderful, and even the naysayers will (hopefully) get a new perspective on his approach to the material once they read what he has to say.

DL: What's your take on Zombie's two films and how they fit into the overall series?

JB: I am asked about his films more than any of the others, so if taken out of context, it may look like I am always on a soapbox about this. Let me start by pointing out that the HALLOWEEN series is unique in how it can be looked at in chunks. You have the 1978 original and HALLOWEEN II (’81) that take place on the same night. You have HALLOWEEN III on its own. You have parts 4,5 and 6 that, for the most part, stand together. Then there is the pairing of H20 and RESURRECTION (that can technically be tied in to the original and HALLOWEEN II). Then Rob’s two entries. The bottom line is this: despite some common elements, it can never be said that every new HALLOWEEN film carries on the whole story laid out by the preceding entry, and there has obviously been no effort to make them all tie in together. The result is a series of films where each entry takes liberties with the mythos, some more than others.

Fans have come to accept a number of things over time: Michael and Loomis surviving being burned alive in HALLOWEEN II (’81) to return in HALLOWEEN 4; Jamie and Michael having a telepathic link in HALLOWEEN 5; the cult in HALLOWEEN 6; on to H20 basically ignoring the events of parts 4-6. It is my belief that time will be as kind to Rob’s films.

I have heard the complaints, and I look at it this way: Rob is an artist, and every artist works with their own palette, approaching each project the only way they know how. Rob has a very distinct style, visually and with how he constructs and conveys a story, and he brought that approach with him to the HALLOWEEN world. You can’t expect him to create like Carpenter, Rosenthal, or Little, because like each of them, he only has his style to deliver. He has been cultivating that approach for decades with his music videos, which were really, in my opinion, basically horror shorts as opposed to the standard MTV formula, and audiences then saw him further evolve with HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL’S REJECTS. In his first HALLOWEEN, you can see his struggle with original elements vs. new material, and I think that is why you end up with something that is almost like two different films sewn into one. I enjoyed it. It was nice to see something new being done with the characters, the cast was fantastic, and it put HALLOWEEN back into the general discussion.

With HALLOWEEN II, you really see Rob on his home turf, working from a more instinctive place, and the results, in my opinion, are stronger than what he ended up with the first time out. I appreciate many of the elements he explored here, and there are some moments of genuine beauty, too, like Michael in the rain at the beginning, and the black and white “lords of Halloween” sequence with the Myers skeleton on the wall, the snow, and Sheri in the funeral dress. At the very least, even the most hardened critic should be able to admit the first 30 minutes (the hospital sequence) is strong stuff. I am glad the theatrical version of this film is going out of print, because the director’s cut is the only way to experience it.

I am comfortable with where Rob’s films fit into the HALLOWEEN universe. They present a darker take on the story, and give audiences a much more violent and monstrous Michael. Of course they have their flaws, but they commit no crimes against the preceding eight movies (I don’t think any film hurts the integrity of another), and most certainly aren’t replacing the 1978 original and 1981’s HALLOWEEN II on anyone’s shelves. If anything, I would say these films are likely leading a younger generation to explore what came before, which is doing us all a favor by creating more fans, ensuring the series endures. Opening at #1 and #3, respectively, at the box office doesn’t hurt the chances of there being more HALLOWEEN’s down the road, either.

DL: Which is your personal favorite of the series, and why?

JB: I hold Carpenter’s original very hear and dear to my heart. The first one I saw was actually HALLOWEEN II (’81), but where that impressed me, the original, which I saw next, knocked my socks off. The pacing, atmosphere, music, and the horrifying reality that there is nothing supernatural or unrealistic to allow a separation between the audience and the film, all works with such mastery. There is no security when the madman seems to have no motive, and the cast is populated with average kids in an average suburban neighborhood. Plus, I grew up in the Midwest, and Haddonfield is just like my hometown, making it all the more effective.

DL: Will you be talking to all of the actors who've portrayed Michael over the years?

JB: Yes, it is my plan to have them all involved, and several are already in the can.

DL: Why do you think Michael Myers is such an enduring character?

JB: Because, at least in the original, Michael/The Shape is just a human being. He isn’t ripping anyone in two or flying around in space. Even at his most outrageous (his thumb through a forehead comes to mind), I think an earnest attempt is made in each film to keep him pretty grounded in reality. As we all know, reality is often more horrifying than fantasy.

“Dr. Loomis” is Blu Gilliand, a freelance writer whose work has appeared in the fright-filled pages of DARK SCRIBE, DARK DISCOVERIES, SHROUD MAGAZINE and Horror World, among others. He also runs his own blog, October Country, devoted to horror and crime fiction. Feel free to stalk him on Twitter (@BluGilliand) at your own risk.

And it always seemed that Michael Myers could easily find his way to my neighborhood. That being said, I always had a soft spoke for Halloween II because I think NBC used to run it so much around Halloween.

My issue is that Michael Myers is just evil - he wasn't made to be evil. No reason for it, and he could never be reasoned with. Once you try to add back story of why he was supernatural, it lost the mystery.

The original Halloween is SO much better than the sequels and the awful Zombie films, but I look forward to reading about how they went wrong. The book will be a tough read, though, if the author approaches H20, etc. as if they are classics.

But I and II are still my fav to watch back to back.
Rob's films I really enjoyed and I am a lifelong fan of the series. I watch John carpenter's originals and Rob Zombie's 1&2 every halloween. All of the films were a different take on who/ what Michael is.
But IMO the first one is great, the second is good, and the rest I haven't watched in over fifteen years, but have fond memories of.
But the director's cut of Rob's second film is a blast to watch and I love the different take on laurie's life after the events of the first.
This book is gonna be awesome for Halloween fan-boys of which I am one.

I really don't get the hate that this one receives. It's the first one since III that tries to do something a little differently, and I have huge respect for RZ doing things his way, fans' expectations be damned. It is a gritty, visceral horror movie that, unlike its predecessor, it's strapped down by expectations of homages and tributes. I'm hoping that, like SEASON OF THE WITCH, that time will change minds.

I love Halloween, though I hold some of the films in higher regard than the others. Of course, the original is a classic, I've always been partial to H4. Dwight Little does a great job creating a foggy, dark Haddonfield on Halloween night, Danielle Harris gives us a child protagonist who is both cute and sympathetic when her character could have been a screechy annoyance, and Alan Howarth gives us a score that is both filled with brilliantly haunting ambient sound and a slightly pop-infused, driving take on Carpenter's iconic Halloween theme.

Although I really hated the second half of Rob Zombie's Halloween when I first saw it in theaters, as did the rest of the theater that really got out of hand when we were laughing at how awful it was.
Then I rewatched it some time later and I loved all of it. I just had to get over the recreated scenes from the original.

Fuck I loved this movie. I'm almost afraid to watch it again because the way I saw it was perfect.
It was a late night showing on a cool, quiet, autumn month. There were a few other people in the theater who were respectable and quiet.
The movie is a beautiful masterpiece of a trip into the psyche of Laurie Strode post-"the night he came home".
Say whatever you want about his first entry that was a half remake, but this entry is original.
I fucking cared about the characters and the atmosphere was perfect. An art-house Halloween.
SPOILER:
I saw it as Michael was all in her head and she was having a mental breakdown. I don't know of anyway else to see it. I think if you take it as Michael really coming back it wouldn't be as great. Which is why I'm afraid to watch it again. That first viewing was perfect. I'll only watch it again when I complete my Death Star of a home theater to recreate the cinematic experience with that beautiful filmic grain.

I suppose that's a way of looking at it, but I'm not sure that was Zombie's intent. Keep in mind that the theatrical cut and the director's cut have very different endings. And if the intent was to have Michael existing only in her head for the entire film, then what was the point of establishing the white horse vision? What about Michael's fucked up psycho dream about the pumpkin lords or whatever (one of my favorite scenes in this entire series)?
I think it's still a great art-house HALLOWEEN movie even if you see it as Michael really being there. She's hallucinating or something towards the end and has a psychic link to Michael, and she is definitely having a complete and total breakdown, that's for sure. Anyway, I'm glad there's at least a few other people who appreciate this movie. It's very unfairly maligned.

I would really like to know because I've read things where he said that Michael really comes back and others where he apparently said he intended it to all be in her head.
Maybe this fucking book could shed some light.

The magic and mystery of Halloween has inspired me since I was a small child, not just the movie franchise, but the holiday and its history.
We discussed how we both came to the original film the same way. We read and obsessed over the paperback novelization which, in fact, included a prologue about the Druids and a curse placed on the Myers family. I was just a bit too young to see "Halloween" during it's original theatrical run, but I did catch a segment on "At the Movies with Siskel & Ebert" in which they lavished praise on the film and showed a clip from the movie that scared the beejeezus out of me and left me with a mission in life to see the film (and own the soundtrack!).
I was able to see "Halloween II" in the theater during its original run, a HUGE deal for me then and still today, and I've seen every Halloween film in the theater since.
Due to the fact that I'm as fascinated with the atmosphere and mood of the holiday at least as much as I am with Michael Myers, I absolutely love "Halloween III." Due to the fact that I read Fangoria and other Monster Mags, I knew what to expect, and never felt cheated the way others have expressed feeling.
"Halloween 4" is my favorite sequel in the franchise. I think it's the one with the greatest MidWestern Fall atmosphere and comes the closest to capturing the mood Carpenter created in the original.
Anyway, I can tell you that Justin Beahm is the "real deal" as far as being a Halloween fan, and we should all feel lucky that he's working behind the scenes both on this book and on the next film in the franchise. If you were like me, and had mixed emotions and sort of a love/hate relationship with Rob Zombie's take on the franchise, I believe the next film (based on what Justin said and how it's currently developing for a release next year) will put everything right.
By the way, it WILL NOT be in 3-D. That much I can say!

Is a complete hack of a filmmaker.<p>
What I'd like to see this book cover is how after the true caretaker of the Halloween franchise, Moustapha Akkad, was tragically murdered in a terrorist bombing of his hotel during a wedding reception how his aprobate, and completely and utterly clueless heir Malek, desperately sought street cred for the franchise and comically turned to an erstwhile hack who had not paid his dues in the film world one iota but instead cruised into the opportunity based on his emo/faux scary goth BS celebrity shtick and proceeded to defecate over the literally charred remains of a once great franchise.<p>
Zombie was given the keys to the kingdom to quote-unquote reinvigorate the terror aspect of the Michael Myers and what this film school dropout proceeded to foist from "his palette" was a 7'1 hug running former pro wrestler and dialogue centered around the effects of tacos on a truckers bowel movements. If that, coupled with a few flat incest references, qualifies as an "artistic palette" then I don't have really high hopes for this book.<p>
There are few, if any, redeeming qualities about ROB's "vision" and I for one am chomping at the bit to see if this author is truly objective in allowing Carpenter's take on ROB's artistic "vision."<p>
Because what Carpenter said wasn't pretty folks, no matter how little Malek Akkad hard tries to spin it with access and hidden tidbits.....

Your point might have more legitimacy if the old man hadn't greenlit the steaming pile of shit known as Resurrection. That was the Halloween that truly ruined the franchise. Rob Zombie actually made Michael Myers frightening again, moreso in the second film. He was a brutal killing machine in that movie and it's one of the best in the series.

A cursory Google search reveals that Carpenter's only public comment about Zombie's Halloween films was that Rob should "have fun with it" and make it his own thing, which he did. What interviews have you read, sauronthepowerful3?

Presenting Dr. Loomis as a careless opportunist completely misses what Donald Pleasance made so great about that character.
If Michael Myers is patient, instinctive evil, then Dr. Loomis was his tireless, selfless pursuer. Not a book peddler.
If Rob Zombie thinks that Dr. Loomis was just a sucky psychiatrist, then he missed the point. Michael Myers is EVIL, no one could have helped him. The Pleasance Dr. Loomis realized this and did everything he could to lock him away and throw away the key.

Also, he's a professional. Even if he hated Rob Zombies' vision, he isn't going to say so in a published interview.
Even my least favorite Halloween film has bits I enjoy, even if it's just hearing parts of the old Carpenter/Alan Howarth score or a nice shot of Michael Myers here and there. I think most Halloween obsessives can relate.
For hardcore fans, just like hardcore fans of rock bands, sometimes it's just as interesting to study the "one that didn't work" as it is to study the one that everyone agrees is a classic. What went wrong? Why did this happen? For example, I've always been as curious about the story surrounding KISS's "Songs from the Elder" as I have about "Destroyer."

I've always considered this to be true, until this past Halloween season when George Romero hosted a movie night on cable (either AMC or TCM). He said that maybe Michael Myers really is a ghost, and gave his reasons why. I don't recall exactly what he said, but it would explain some of the things Myers does (especially in the sequels). I don't know if you have any plans to get quotes from other prominent horror filmmakers on the series, but if you do, you should get Romero's take.

I don't believe he's "just a human being." I don't think, necessarily, that's what Beahm meant either. I think what he meant is that he went from being played by a normal human "shape" in the original film to a giant, hulking monstrosity in the Zombie films. The actors/stuntmen who played Michael in the sequels got bigger and bigger with each film.
I have to default to Sam Loomis' descriptions of the Shape. He's evil incarnate. There's nothing inside him that is even remotely human. Now Loomis is clearly a bit bonkers, but I think he knows more than anybody else what Michael is.
Obviously, even in the first film, there is something supernatural driving him. I wouldn't go as far as to say he's a ghost, as Romero interprets the character, but he isn't human. He seems to die in the film twice, when Laurie stabs him with the sewing needle to the neck and the knife to the chest, but he is "ressurected" or "re-animated" like a puppet. Loomis' first shot is to the head, and he pumps six shots into him, but his body disappears like he is, indeed, a ghost. I've always looked at Michael like an empty shell puppeteered by some ancient, unknowable, evil force.

It would also go a long way to explain his mysterious power to "teleport." Not to mention his apparently ability to grow back his eyes after having them shot out by Laurie Strode at the end of "Halloween II."

Didn't use the phrase "cursory google search."<p>
Carpenter greenlit nothing.<p>
In 1987 he was sued by Moustapha Akkad to force his name as executive producer on subsequent sequels to engender some sort of cloak and dagger legitimacy by having the name John Carpenter in the credits. He had previously tried the legal route to secure franchise rights and lost.<p>
As far as Zombie goes, out of Zombie's own mouth he called Carpenter up and said:<p>
RZ: "John.....this is Rob Zombie, I'm gonna be remaking Halloween."<p>
Carpenter's response:<p>
"Yeah.......what the fuck do you want me to do about it".........SCHWING!!!!!!!!<p>
This whole nonsense about "Carpenter giving his blessing" and "passing the torch to a new artistic interpretation" is PURE, UNADULTURATED poppycock BULLSHIT concocted by the village idiot Malek Akkad in a pathetically desperate attempt to parlay some sort of manufactured artistic street cred to Mr. Cummings' (try a cursory google search on that reference, my friend) "artistic palette."<p>
Link is either here or on Blabbermouth, I'll try and find it for you. I rewatched the clip within the past 2 weeks.<p>
Seen the original 317 times mate and all of the 2-6 sequels (excepting III and including the revered 'Producer's Cut' over 50 times......EACH!

Totally off-topic, but you do realize "SCHWING" signified Wayne and/or Garth being sexually aroused, right? Why would you use it in this context?
Anyway, nobody ever said Carpenter gave it his blessing. He realized he couldn't do anything about a remake, so he told Zombie to make it his own thing. While I'm waiting for you to post your link backing up your "facts", here's mine - http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/John%20Carpenter/
And here's a link to the interview you're talking about - not exactly a revelation or a "SCHWING!!!!!!" moment, but hey whatever tickles your pickle - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgLXjPBkyAM
By the way, when I mentioned "the old man" in my previous post, I was talking about Moustapha. He was still alive when he greenlit the horrible fucking abomination that was Resurrection. That piece of shit movie was worse than anything Rob Zombie could have dreamed up. The only good part of that movie was the first 10 minutes, and I'm using the word "good" very loosely because of the cheap-ass way they brought Michael back. What a retarded pile of steaming crap that was. So please, save your hand-wringing over what Akkad Jr. has done to the franchise. His old man fucked it up so badly that he had no choice but to wipe the slate clean. I've seen all the same Halloween movies you have, many many times, so your "experience" being a major fan of the franchise doesn't make you as special or authoritative as you think it does.
I anxiously await the links backing up your proclamations that what Carpenter said about Zombie's Halloween movies "wasn't pretty."

He should've followed that (reference Bloody Disgusting)<p>
And from what you are saying, because the father sinned, the son's equally disturbing and incompetent decision making is automatically exonerated.<p>
While I whole heatedly agree that Resurrection was a 'steaming abomination,' RZWeen is certainly no better and in many ways worse.<p?
The difference...........H8 was a largely unknown project trying to move the franchise in a modernist way by utilizing the reality-tv theme in its story. That plus we get a young Katie Sackoff. Do I think any of tat backs up or justifies the utter shitfest that that and H20 were.....no.<p>
HOWEVER.....Rob Zombie CHOSE to REMAKE one of the most iconic characters and stories of the genre. A character and a story that have been encapsulated by AFI. From moment one he was met (VERY RIGHTLY) with fierce fan resistance.....A) because his resume was so short and so questionable and B) because the mantra of his previous work, coupled with his press releases stating the abused child connection basically solidified all of the fears that fanboys had with this film school dropout taking on the project.<p>
Heck, even Mishka over at Bloody Disgusting was fawning and drooling over this project, against the protestations of HIS clientele, when ROB granted him set access and promo priviledges that would've ade Harry Knowles jealous. And what was Mr. D's end result.......that the movie was 'seriously lacking' and a 'huge disappointment of expectations.' His H2 review is no less supportive.<p>
And yes, you can cling to Rob's filtered version of the conversation if you are that blind, but hey, to each, his own.......

But Rob [Zombie] has been a friend of mine for years. He did a song for me way back when [for Escape from LA]. Hes a real nice guy. He called me up when they were going to make it and I said, Just make it your own. Hell. Thats the most important thing. Make it yours.

July 14, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

by Chrononaut

But Rob [Zombie] has been a friend of mine for years. He did a song for me way back when [for Escape from LA]. Hes a real nice guy. He called me up when they were going to make it and I said, Just make it your own. Hell. Thats the most important thing. Make it yours.

Let me try this again... guess we're not allowed to use quotation marks?
If you don't like Rob Zombie's "filtered" account of the conversation, how about Carpenter's?
John: No, I bailed out of that after a while. But Rob [Zombie] has been a friend of mine for years. He did a song for me way back when [for Escape from LA]. Hes a real nice guy. He called me up when they were going to make it and I said, Just make it your own. Hell. Thats the most important thing. Make it yours.
OUCH!!!! He really roasted him over the coals there, didn't he? Now, if you can just supply that link you mentioned where Carpenter trashed Zombie's Halloween movies, I'd be much obliged.
Your argument is becoming more laughable with each post. Resurrection is THE ABSOLUTE WORST Halloween film that has ever been made. From the ridiculously stupid explanation they came up with to bring Michael back, to the annoying-as-fuck characters, the dated webcam concept, Tyra Banks, the legendarily terrible kung-fu action by Busta Rhymes... I saw this thing in the theater and people couldn't stop laughing throughout the movie. I'm starting to doubt that you have actually seen it, because I don't see how any serious Halloween fan could defend it in any way.
As for Zombie, I guess you could say he "chose" to direct it after it was offered to him. I don't think he went to Akkad and asked to do it, and he'd be an idiot to turn down a job like that. Can you honestly say, in your line of work, that you would turn down a high-paying, high-profile project that could theoretically open doors for you to work on projects of your own choosing? I'm glad you brought up how the original Halloween has been "encapsulated" by AFI... the original will always be there, it's not going anywhere. Why such venom for a remake? Did you really want a sequel to Resurrection following the further adventures of a 50-plus-year-old Michael Myers?
I wasn't a huge fan of Zombie's first Halloween, although I did like that he grounded it in his own style of reality and made Michael scary again. The director's cut was a superior film to the theatrical release, but it's still wildly uneven. However, Zombie's H2 is one of my favorites in the series because he actually took chances and did something different with the characters by exploring the psychological aspect. Not to mention that was the scariest version of Michael since Halloween 4. Just for shits and gigs, here's how I'd rank 'em:
1. John Carpenter's Halloween
2. Halloween 4
3. Halloween III
4. Rob Zombie's Halloween II
5. Halloween 6
6. John Carpenter's Halloween II
7. Halloween 5
8. Rob Zombie's Halloween
9. Halloween H20
10. Halloween: Resurrection

Resurrection was a pile of shit, I believe I DID say that quite clearly. The only defense I will say to that is that you are judging in the hindsight prism of "the dated webcam plotline" wherein it was Moustapha's attempt, at that time, to update the franchise, wrongly, to the modern horror crowd.<p>
Where such cinematic gems as "check out the dumper on your daughter" and "its Taco night with big Joe Foskee" (I embellished on the name with that because I won't grace ROB's "artistic palette" with another viewing to factcheck) fit into the pantheon of relevence is quite beyond me.<P>
Oh yeah, that and:
1) Snow in a Halloween movie<p>
2) Christmas carols in a Halloween movie<p>
3) Daryl Sabara in a Halloween movie (yeah, Juni takes an ass beating with the best of them)<p>
4) Michael Myers as Jason Bourne (if you don't understand that allusion check out BD and the "shaky-cam" arguement)<p>
5) Michaewl Myers' photo collection
6) "Was that the boogeyman"....."As a matter of fact, I do believe, that that very well might have been in another reality devoid of this piece of shit movie, quite possibly the boogeyman".....ahem!<p>
7) Diaherria jokes in a Michael Myers movie<p>
8) Incest jokes in a Michael Myers movie<p>
9) Sherri Moon in a Michael Myers movie<p>
10) Taking THE most iconic figures in horror, who earned that mantle strictly due to the unexplainable mystery of his madness and "reimagining" (because you claimed in press interviews that certain aspects of Carpenter's original made no sense to you ((with your film school associate's degree him.....ahem)) as a bullied and abused WWE castoff with a photographic memory and a fetish for mask-making attempting to excise bad memories of getting said ass kicked as a petulant pussy of a child by Daryl Sabara while watching your mother get porked by William Forsythe.<p>
Yeah.....Resurrection can't hold a candle to that.<p>
You must be infinitely stupid to believe for a second that the shitfest that was H8 automatically exonerates and gives free reigh to a stunted music industry reject to make an equally, if not far worse, interpretation of the franchise.<p>
Difference being.....Zombie publically stated that he "didn't understand certain aspects of Carpenter's original." As if his 'artistic palette' was clarifying mistakes in Carpenter's concept.<p>
Not by a country mile my firend. Now it is you who are starting to sound desperate.....